Mumbai, April 12, 2024 – Mayank Pradeep Sharma, a 22-year-old resident of Delhi, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai in a case involving allegations of cheating and forgery. Additional Sessions Judge V.M. Sundale allowed Sharma’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 866 of 2024), citing the lack of substantial recovery during his custody and concerns about his indefinite detention.
Sharma was arrested in connection with Crime No. 24/2024 (DCB CID Unit-VIII) and Crime No. 250/2024 (Vakola Police Station), facing charges under sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery1 for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record),2 and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code3 (IPC).
Prosecution’s Case:
The prosecution alleged that Sharma and a co-accused induced the complainant to hand over 25,000 US dollars under the pretext of exchanging it for ₹21,25,000, thereby cheating him. The investigating officer claimed that Sharma was identified in CCTV footage and that similar offenses were registered against him.
Defense Arguments:
Sharma’s advocate, Prem Kumar R. Pandey, argued that his client’s name was not mentioned in the initial FIR and that he was arrested solely based on CCTV footage. He pointed out that during police custody, only mobile handsets, SIM cards, hotel key cards, ATM cards, and mobile bills were recovered, none of which directly implicated Sharma in the alleged crime. He also highlighted that Sharma had been in custody since March 6, 2024, and that his presence was not required for any further recovery or discovery.
Prosecution’s Objections:
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), Ratnavali Patil, strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that the investigation was ongoing and that Sharma’s involvement was clear from the CCTV footage. The prosecution also claimed that similar offenses were registered against Sharma and that his release could lead to tampering with the investigation, fleeing from justice, and pressurizing witnesses.
Court’s Decision:
Judge Sundale, after reviewing the record and considering the submissions, noted that Sharma’s name was not in the initial FIR and that he was arrested based on CCTV footage. He observed that during police custody, no substantial evidence linking Sharma to the alleged crime was recovered.
The court also noted that while the prosecution claimed similar offenses were registered against Sharma, no evidence was provided to substantiate this claim. Judge Sundale expressed concern about the possibility of Sharma’s indefinite detention while the investigation continued. He concluded that the apprehensions raised by the prosecution could be addressed by imposing certain conditions.
Conditions of Bail:
Judge Sundale granted Sharma bail on the following conditions:
- He must execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹50,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
- He and his surety must provide their mobile numbers, email addresses, and residential address documents.
- He must not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or pressurize any person acquainted with the case.
- He must not leave India without prior court permission.
- He must attend the DCB CID Unit-VIII police station every Monday between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM until the filing of the charge sheet.
- Provisional cash bail of the same amount was allowed, with a four-week deadline to furnish surety.
- Breach of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.
- Bail must be furnished before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court.
Significance of the Order:
This order highlights the court’s consideration of the following factors when granting bail:
- Lack of Substantial Recovery: The court noted the lack of significant recovery during police custody.
- Absence of Direct Implication: The court observed that Sharma’s name was not in the initial FIR and that he was arrested based on CCTV footage.
- Concerns About Indefinite Detention: The court expressed concerns about the possibility of indefinite detention without substantial evidence.
- Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed conditions to ensure Sharma’s presence during the trial and prevent any interference with the investigation.